Nice, now everyone is correct. Love to see it!

Voters narrowly approved a 4% surtax on incomes over $1 million in a statewide ballot referendum in November 2022.

??

This article is about an income tax. An additional 4% tax on income over 1 million dollars annually.

This article is not about a wealth tax.

Has this shown to be effective at stopping bots? It seems like you’d just be a few bad actors to ruin the system

I don’t think so. The main reason Facebook is so bad is it’s engagement algorithm. It is designed to maximize user engagement to sell adds, and it does that by putting outrage inspiring posts in front of users so that they have an emotional response and stay engaged. Using a human voting system instead of an outrage algorithm to determine what content people is exactly why I enjoy this platform over the other social media platforms.

Is there still rage bait here? Of course! Is it systematically shoved down your throat? No.

I was assuming you’d make an account with the ID for the govt instance and use anonymous accounts for all other browsing. At least that’s what I would do.

I’m not familiar with web of trust. What does that mean?

I believe there is existing precedent from SCOTUS that official government Twitter accounts were not allowed to block citizens accounts due to it being a ‘public square’. So that was a govt official taking the action of silencing someone’s ability to respond to them on social media protected by 1A. If the PLATFORM had blocked that user it would have been perfectly valid, since the GOVT did not silence a citizen’s speech.

I believe having the govt run the instance would make the entire forum subject to 1A in a way current social media is not. Would love a constitutional scholar to chime in, but that’s my argument.

I also don’t get the impression there is a large bot presence here today. I do think if the platform was used as a normal communication network between constituient and representative it would probably become a target for foreign and domestic bots.

I understand the current context, but I hate seeing people cheering for gerrymandering.

I’d argue the checks and balances worked, the electorate failed. Trump tried to overturn and election and the checks and balances held. That should have been political suicide. He should have not even won a school board seat after that, but the electorate failed and reinstated him. You cannot build enough checks and balances into representative government to save the electorate from repeated mistakes. The checks are there to ensure someone must show their true intents to the electorate before they make a choice.

It does seem the power of the judiciary will be challenged quite soon.

It will probably be with a tweet saying “Make me. You and what army?” and the courts will need to rely on the US military choosing the Constitution over the Commander in Chief.

May we all have the fortune to live securely in less interesting times. I suppose it is our duty to make that happen.

Thank you for the write up. That distinction makes a lot of sense.

Ahh fantastic point. There isn’t really an incentive for the individuals to maintain/perpetuate the institution.

I understand the sentiment. I’m wondering about the efficacy of the strategies to achieve those end goals.

I don’t agree with this. Shareholders extracting value from a company is arguably more of an ‘inefficency’ than treating employees fairly. Well treated employees provide a benefit to the company while shareholders purely remove resources.

I have no data to back up my claim, just logic, so I could very well be wrong.

That you very much for writing this up. It is super interesting, and I feel bad for dismissing her. Unfortunately, I will probably continue people whom are the vague they.

I disagree. Minimum wage is minimum wage. If you don’t care about the moral implications of the for profit prison system… Paying equal wages for prisoners will force higher wages in the non captive population.

What the fuck is this headline? The main subject of the reporting is the online reaction to the actual news story. Why can’t they just report the event and not people’s reaction to it?

That feels like the government placing limits on the rights of corporations to express political views, which SCOTUS has stated is illegal (if you define speech as campaign contributions, which it does).